Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Ok. I've posted the question on the FL forum.
Yeah, I remember that discussion. I could see the above making sense if we were talking shrapnel from a 25mm HE round. Kevlar body armor should be able to stop most small fragments- that's its main purpose. But you're absolutely right- a direct hit from a 25mm round would almost certainly prove fatal (or in game rules terms, prompt a Critical Hit roll, at the very least) to anyone wearing 90s-era ballistic armor.
Agree 100%. Unless FL publishes errata Explosions rules updates (highly unlikely, given Tomas' stated position on errata in general), I think I'm going to have to house rule this one. I'm going to apply both: Direct Damage = shrapnel; Explosion Damage = blast.
I'm not sure that armor should be effective against blast damage. From what I've read about IED explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan, blast wave/overpressure/concussive effects typically bypass body armor altogether, sometimes even killing without leaving a mark on the victim.
-
|
Your assessment of Overpressure Blast damage is reasonably accurate. I say reasonably because sometimes armor does help. M1 Abrams Tanks would INTENTIONALLY roll over small IEDs in Iraq and suffer no real damage from the blast. Alternately, in WWII, the Japanese survived 14" & 16" gun barrages in their bunkers without injury. However, an AH-1 Cobra in Vietnam suppressed an NVA IFV in a rice paddy with 2.75" Rockets. The vehicle was basically only cosmetically damaged but all the occupants were found dead inside from the overpressure blast of the rockets.
I would say VEHICLE armor should be rated at a reduced level for Blast effects damage. Body armor would be worthless from blast damage.